froogle

> Here is the actual die photograph and confirmation that this is being done on TSMC 7nm.

Yikes, Intel. Has to be a pretty low moment as a chipmaker to have to use your competitor's fabs for something like this.

Prediction markets are a way to cut through the fog and find truth. This isn't the equivalent of playing blackjack or roulette. In today's world, it's increasingly difficult to find people in the media who are telling the truth. Pundits everywhere can proffer predictions without being on the hook for anything if they're wrong.

Prediction markets let you more accurately know in advance pretty much anything: war, economic calamity, political outcomes like who will win an election, whether a drug will be approved, etc. and they are a genuine innovation over the current media landscape. Check out Metaculus for an example of the concept with imaginary points; it'd be more accurate if real money were allowed.

Gambling and addiction is a major problem, certainly, and I'm not arguing for zero regulation on gambling. (I could quibble on prediction markets being gambling, though they are closer to it than not.)

Regulators are so useless that they are perfectly willing to allow crypto, Las Vegas casinos and sports betting to exist and be advertised broadly (things with essentially 0 value to society), but an _actually_ useful form of dealing with probability and chance that can help people chart an uncertain world isn't allowed to exist.

Well, except in limited cases if you spend enough money greasing the right pockets and can take down a competitor too. :)

Prediction markets are a fantastic concept with a ton of value I think for everyone. So I wish companies in the field success and I hope they thrive despite regulators doing their best to destroy them, like PredictIt.

I think it's a shame Kalshi has managed to get their hooks into the CFTC and, rather than lobby to open the field to all prediction markets, instead lobbied for narrow permissions to operate only their stuff (in a limited, less useful way) while killing their competitors.

It's a terrible way to operate a business and it's a black stain on YC for funding a company using these kinds of underhanded methods.

I can only hope the regulatory environment improves and we get some improvements at the CFTC, but I think anyone familiar with US government institutions would bet against it. Perhaps someone could open a question about it on a prediction market.

You have to be careful: given a rallying cry of free speech and no censorship, the main appeal of the platform is going to be attracting those holding unpopular opinions.

This happened with the mass exodus from Reddit to Voat of r/the_donald and similar, and I absolutely can see it happening here. Voat became host to a ton of toxic communities.

And because of that, it's going to push more orthodox people people away from the site towards Twitter in a self-reinforcing loop.

The plan for the site to get a broad range of opinions (in this case, the bounty of $20k for a prominent liberal) seems doomed as a result.

Still - hopefully the founders have learned from Voat and have plans in action to stop it before it gets too stuck in the cycle. The bounty is an interesting idea, though I don't think it'll be strong enough to break the perverse social dynamics involved. More competition with Twitter is a good thing.

> My theory is that the FP folks would have seen more success had they figured out ways to bring their features to mainstream languages, rather than asking people to adopt wholesale their weird languages (from an average programmer's point of view).

I'd argue this has been happening for years and years now. If you want a pithy saying, you could say that over time languages become closer and closer to Haskell.

Option types, pattern matching, pure functions (see: Vue/React with computed properties, or any other frameworks doing things close to functional reactive programming), type inference (even Java is getting a var keyword!), more powerful type systems (things like the Typescripts of the world have) are now becoming trendy, but Haskell had them years and years ago.

The above is definitely oversimplifying (a short HN comment is no place to get into the fundamentals behind the various kinds of type systems), but I've found all the things I love in Haskell and other FP languages seem to slowly drift on over to other languages, albeit often a little suckier.

(I'm still waiting on software transactional memory to become mainstream, though. Of course, in languages that allow mutable state and without some way to specify a function has side effects, you're never gonna get quite as nice as Haskell. Oh well.)

I think the idea is you keep the charger plugged in all the time (say, beside your bed) and when you go to sleep you just throw the phone on the charger. Seems kinda convenient to me.

The title is somewhat misleading, I think.

> In total, the visual recognition API classified 1,428 profiles as masculine, 84 as feminine and 1,964 as unclassified.

> The top 100 Stack Overflow users consist of 77 masculine profiles, 21 unclassified and 1 feminine profile.

They only identified a single account belonging to a female, but there 21 unclassified accounts in the top 100 that could also belong to females.

I would certainly expect women to be more reluctant than men to note their gender on their online profiles.

While this used to be true (and mostly still is), the tide is shifting on this point. Games are using more and more cores. Overwatch, for example, uses 6. I believe DirectX 12 makes it easy/reasonable to use 4 cores, with some benefit to be gained with up to 6.

Not that it really helps with some games. Dota 2 is CPU bound for the moment, so if you play that a lot then maximizing single-threaded performance is probably the way to go.

Still, if I was buying a CPU today, I'd be cautious about going for less than quad core if I was interested in new AAA games.

The sunk cost fallacy is when you (irrationally) decide to stick with what you're doing purely because you've already spent a lot of resources on it. It doesn't apply when you've done an economic analysis and found out it doesn't make sense to swap.

There are plenty of cases where it just wouldn't make sense to switch after looking at the costs, opportunity costs, etc. For example, if his site makes him $10 a month, outages cost him $1 a month that could be mitigated by moving, and it would cost $1000 of labor to swap providers. (Depends on interest rates.)

Perhaps it was originally a failure to not have a plan to easily move from a provider, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that right now it may cost too many hours of work to justify the move.

This is getting into semantics, but:

Nothing about investing in stocks is speculation, at least in the theoretical sense. Businesses earn profits. If you buy shares in a business, you are entitled to a share of those profits. Obviously, this gains you money, and this money will (usually) not come at the cost of the business. So, you'll gain money due to dividends, and your investment won't lose money.

Investing in stocks is going to be, on average, a net gain for you. In theory. And mostly in practice, see for example the massive exponential gains in the S&P 500.

There's a lot more to things. For example, sometimes businesses fail and you'll have lost all your money. And on the flip side, maybe a business will grow enormously. But this just adds noise to the data, it doesn't change the fact that, on average, you should make money on stocks in the long-term.

If you just buy a total market index fund, you're making a bet with a high expected value. That's not "speculation" in the same sense of going to a casino and playing blackjack or buying an asset which has no fundamental reason to rise in value (like precious metals).

So, I think it's misleading to call investing "speculation". It gives off the wrong vibes, since the way most people understand the word it makes it sounds like investing is super risky. (And yes, there's some risk, don't get me wrong, but not in the sense that it's a coin flip like many people think.)

r/AskHistorians has some of the highest quality research you're going to find on the internet, at least if you're not a history major yourself. The mods there are amazing, and the posts usually have sources you can look into yourself.

If you haven't browsed it before, I highly recommend looking into it.